They were founded on this idea: if the CCP is the first to create AGI, there will be great harm to anyone who values personal freedom. Perhaps the open source community could instead be the first to create it, preventing this harm. Hence, Open AI.
However, the CCP making AGI is only one possibility for harm. After OpenAI made GPT, they realized that bad actors could use GPT to flood the internet with propaganda.
That would, of course, create harm.
OpenAI were naive with their plan to make the precursors to AGI open. They had picked a bad name for themselves, because they don't care merely about open sourcing AGI. They care foremost about harm reduction.
When we think of sacred things, it's hard to think logically. Many people on Hacker News hold two things as sacred: open source and unfettered freedom of speech.
Whenever these sacred ideas are infringed upon, many people here can't see nuance. They're blinded by rage.
I wish more of us could see that the OpenAI team are American programmers. They like freedom of speech and open source, just like us. They're not evil villains. Many of them read Hacker News.
To understand their decisions, we need to understand that their core value is harm reduction. When open source or freedom of speech is incompatible with harm reduction, they're going to choose harm reduction.
They're also not going to let themselves get destroyed by bad press after somebody makes a Nazi bot or whatever.
I love what they're doing, so it makes me sad to see all of this hate. I wish their projects were more open, because I really want to play with DALL-E, but I think ultimately OpenAI is moving us forward. They're an asset, and vitriol toward them is misplaced.
They were founded on this idea: if the CCP is the first to create AGI, there will be great harm to anyone who values personal freedom. Perhaps the open source community could instead be the first to create it, preventing this harm. Hence, Open AI.
However, the CCP making AGI is only one possibility for harm. After OpenAI made GPT, they realized that bad actors could use GPT to flood the internet with propaganda.
That would, of course, create harm.
OpenAI were naive with their plan to make the precursors to AGI open. They had picked a bad name for themselves, because they don't care merely about open sourcing AGI. They care foremost about harm reduction.
When we think of sacred things, it's hard to think logically. Many people on Hacker News hold two things as sacred: open source and unfettered freedom of speech.
Whenever these sacred ideas are infringed upon, many people here can't see nuance. They're blinded by rage.
I wish more of us could see that the OpenAI team are American programmers. They like freedom of speech and open source, just like us. They're not evil villains. Many of them read Hacker News.
To understand their decisions, we need to understand that their core value is harm reduction. When open source or freedom of speech is incompatible with harm reduction, they're going to choose harm reduction.
They're also not going to let themselves get destroyed by bad press after somebody makes a Nazi bot or whatever.
I love what they're doing, so it makes me sad to see all of this hate. I wish their projects were more open, because I really want to play with DALL-E, but I think ultimately OpenAI is moving us forward. They're an asset, and vitriol toward them is misplaced.